September 1, 2012

Here are the words in John Updike's 1978 novel The Coup with which William F. Buckley was unfamiliar, according to WFB's December 14, 1978 column in which he passed "the sesquipedalian torch" to Updike:

In case you are keeping score at home, "disphoretic" isn't a word in English. WFB misspelled Updike's "diaphoretic."

I read this column at 19 or 20. The only word on it I can recall knowing then was "scree," although goobers, henna, and riverine seem pretty easy. Most of the words WFB didn't know are either of a technical nature or indigenous to Africa or the Arab desert world. I know a lot more of the words now than I did then. although some of that comes from reading The Coup. Updike's vocabulary is excessive, but he was also such a talented writer that you can usually guess what the word means from context.

Do vocabularies continue to grow over a lifetime of reading? The 10 word vocab test on the GSS could of course be used for this, but most of my growth has evidently been at the high end of the range, which probably wouldn't show up on the GSS.

50 comments:

Of those I know:extollation (e.g. of virtue)pestles (to be used with mortars)goobers (of the nose, though this refers to other things too which I don't know the meaning of and it would be those probably that were used in The Coup)henna (ink?)riverine (pertaining to rivers)adsorptive (property that pertains to collecting matter on the surface as opposed to inside, e.g. carbon filtration)

Six of those 15 words (Harmattan, toubab, suras, marabout, henna, burnoose) are Arabic words which have found their way in French, as: l'Harmattan, toubab (in Africa, a white person; in French banlieues, a vulgar word for Whites), soura, marabout, henné, burnous.

We also have an amusing expression: "faire suer le burnous" (to make the burnous sweat) = exploit native workers in North Africa. A burnous is a kind of sleeveless hooded woolen North African coat.

the ones i know, or have a vague knowledge about:harmattan: the season of dusty winds, in west africa, and probably other parts.suras: verses from the koranjerboa: some kind of plant, whose oil may be found in shampoosbilharzia: a disease of the tropicspestle: the bowl that goes with the mortar (or is it the other way around)eversion: going out rather than in. for instance, an everted belly buttongoober: bogeyscowries. the shell, once apparently used as currency amongst pacific islanders?henna: a dye, used in india as tattoo ink, elsewhere as hair dye.scree: loose rock, perhaps on an incline?riverine: related to rivers (i'm guessing)haptic: touch, as a sense

The only ones I know are extollation, pestle, henna, scree, and adsorptive, though riverine does seem self-explanatory. I would've known extollation (extol's not exactly obscure, though Google's never heard of extollation, nor has dictionary.reference.com) and adsorptive (they taught adsorption in chemistry) at 19, and probably scree, too. I learned pestle a bit later, and henna later still. The rest I never heard of.

[1-4: nothing]suras--the Koran verses? Probably didn't know that until after 9/11extollation--guessing the noun form of extoll jerboa--I think some sort of plant which gives a waxy product used in shampoo?[next three: nothing]pangolins hyraxes-- a hyrax is a sort of high mountain rodent, like a marmot, I believe. A species of them?pestles--hmmm, plural of pestle, as in mortar and ...?[next two, nothing]goobers--peanuts[marabout-no idea]xerophytic-- guessing living in a dry climateoleography--guessing some sort of process of writing or drawing with oil or waxcowries-- guessing the shells[chrysoprase-no idea]henna--the dye popular with mid-East women for hair coloring, temporary tattoosscree--loose rock, typically on moutain slopesriverine--of or relating to riversadsorptive--guessing the opposite of absorbent, i.e. repelling water[haptic-no idea]burnoose-- a woman's hair/head covering

Okay, some not bad guesses--sort of close on oleograph and burnoose, nearly there on adsorbtive-- and I would have likely gotten pangolins had the comma been placed correctly.

Some of those words (e.g. coussabe, toubab) don't even show up on Apple's dictionary (which I believe is based on American Hertiage's college dictionary). A web search for 'coussabe' takes us all the way back to a 'Monthly Review" description of Timbuctoo dating from 1830

Laterite is probably related to lateral, which pertains to the sides of things.Dia means "through" in Greek, but what phoretic means I don't know.Aren't suras some kind of Koranic or other Islamic verses?Could euphorbia be a fear of pleasure? Euphoria + phobia? Probably not.Extollation should be the noun form of "to extoll". Praise, I guess.I know what a pangolin is! They were mentioned in the Aubrey/Maturin novels. Ant-eater-type critters covered in big scales that live in tropical forests, in Africa I think.And I know what a hyrax is. They look like a cross between squirrels and rabbits and live in North Africa. The word Hispania/Espan~a/Spain is thought by some to come from the Phoenician word for hyraxes. They're suppsoed to have been abundant in Iberia in antiquity. I got curious about the etymology of "Spain" once, and learned about the existence of hyraxes while reading up on it.Pholem xylem. Xylem is a form of the Greek word for wood. Xylophone = wood-sound. What is pholem? No idea.Eversion. We all know aversion, perversion, subversion, inversion. There's also evasion and invasion. The -in parts of inversion and invasion appear to mean very different things (upside down and into), so I wouldn't be surprised if the e- parts of eversion and evasion meant different things too. If this was a test and I wasn't penalized for guessing, I'd say that eversion means the same thing as aversion."Goobers" sounds like it could have been a racial epithete, though this is almost pure guessing.Xerophytic is easy. Dry-plant in Greek. Any time you see "phyto" in biology, it is a reference to plants, i.e. flora. I'm pretty sure about what cowries are - a type of sea shells.Chrysoprase. Chryso means gold in Greek, but what is prase? Could it be some sort of clothing, perhaps something worn by priests? I'm probably wrong about prase. Henna - some type of plant from which some sort of dye is derived? I think Indian women color their arms and hands with henna in the days before marriage?Scree. I think that's rocks at the bottom of valleys? Lots of rocks strewn abound by nature, that kind of thing?Riverine obviously means "pertaining to rivers or their banks". Adsorptive has got to mean the opposite of absorptive. Adsorptive things probably don't absorb anything. I'm very sure about haptic. It comes from the Greek word for touching and relates to tectile sensations. The iPad has a haptic screen because it responds to your touch. The engineers who develop such screens are involved with "haptics".

By the way, the toughest and most fun test of such knowledge that I'm aware of is the MAT, the Miller Analogies Test. I got a 476 on it once. If anyone here guessed more of these correctly than I did, he'd probably score higher.

I am a Russian living in the USA for 14 years. I know eight words from the list - but all of them pertain to nature or science, which is what I do for living. I am sure that a list of English words that I don't know and WFB knew could fill a page or two.

There are two kinds of IQ tests: group and individual. The WAIS is the most famous group test and the Stanford-Binet the most famous individual.

The Stanford-Binet takes a long time to administer. When I took it as an undergraduate I think it was about two hours - maybe three. So the instructions allow the tester to make an assessment on just a part of the full test when time is short.

That part is the vocabulary section. As it happens the list of words gets progressively more difficult so that anyone will know the meanings of the first words on the list but few will know all those near the end. The last word on the list is pretty obscure.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

The last word on the list is - or used to be - limpet. I know this word. Steve knows this word. Anyone who lives in California especially anyone near Stanford should know this word.

If you don't know its meaning, google it. You will find that you immediately feel smarter.

I got twenty - Buckley's vocabulary seems short on natural history and foreign terms.

He must have held himself to stricter standards than I do - context and Latin would have given him a very near idea of "oleograph" or "xerophytic" but if he didn't have it precisely he didn't count it.

Reading is habit forming - I've never smoked, and don't drink but I need to get my 'fix' of stimulation, daily, by reading something new, hence the fact that the internet since its inception, has taken over my life, and the fact I'm always trawling the second hand book section of thrift shops for anything that takes my fancy. It is only by reading, and reading voraciously, do we pick up new words.'Phloem' and 'xylem' I remember from High School biology - as I thought anyone who studied that subject to elementary level would know, as being concerned with the transpiration and food uptake of trees. Just reemember loving the sound and spelling of those words - that's another thing I think you need that type of mind that loves collecting facts in the way a trash can loves collecting garbage and a real love of words for their own sake a love of the sound, rhythym, etymology and context.

The reason vocabulary is important is because it is 'g' loaded. Originally the Stanford-Binet used the term "verbal fluency" to describe verbal (as opposed to quantitative) ability. But that usage was confusing and is now obsolete.

Nowadays when we say verbal fluency we mean the ability to speak quickly, not search for words, and not say "duh". We do not mean vocabulary.

Professional media speakers are chosen for their verbal fluency not for their vocabularies. Try this little test at home. Copy down one of Bill O'Reilly's opening memos. Then record it. Your recitation of that text will almost certainly take longer than his did. It's even more dramatic for impromptu speech. O'Reilly talks fast, as do all the Fox talking heads. They never stumble or are at a loss for words. The greatest of these is undoubtedly Geraldo Rivera who I once saw describe the hurricane he was in, while up to his waist in floodwater and screaming into the mic to try to be heard above the howling wind. He never missed a single word.

That tour-de-force of commentary didn't prove that he was smart - rather the opposite. That's a good way to get yourself killed. But that kind of verbal fluency is a very specific talent that few have.

Obama is said to speak well. But people who say that really mean fluent in the newscaster sort of speaking. He does not exhibit a particularly large vocabulary. Some of that is undoubtedly on purpose, but smart people inadvertently use big words from time to time. Bill O'Reilly tries to tone down his vocabulary so as not to speak over his audience's head, but in heated debate he will occasionally use a $20 word.

When I was in the Army as a buck private I heard some other trooper say of me, "he uses big words but he doesn't know what they mean". I had failed. The barracks was not a faculty lounge. I wasn't trying to impress anyone, quite the opposite. I often had the right word come immediately to mind but then stumbled to find a simpler synonym or construction. I wanted to fit in. I'm sure others on this blog have had a similar experience. When you try to speak in the simplest terms it can be harder than just saying the first word that pops into your head. So it is that with continuous exposure people with larger vocabularies will inevitably reveal themselves.

By now we've all heard Obama speak in many situations. He simply doesn't use big words or complicated phrases. He does not have to "talk down" to his audience to be understood. When Bill O'Reilly uses some arcane term he immediately rephrases it in simpler terms. Obama never seems to need to do that.

I was 21 when I first took a GRE test. I scored a 790. In the 4 years between my first and second testing I read a lot more and my vocabulary probably increased. But either the first score was a fluke, or I was already too close to the test's ceiling for the impact of my further reading to register, because my verbal scored dropped 20 pts.

I know all of them but these (I haven't read The Coup-- yet!): Harmattan, toubab, jerboa, coussabe, sareba, oleograph.

Except for oleograph, which I guess to be a technical word from either the printing or petroleum industries, the ones I don't know look like African or Arabian terms, though "coussabe" has sort of a French flavor-- maybe something to do with Algeria?

That list includes terms from botany, geology, and zoology as well as Arabic(ish) words.

As an FYI.... You can find the "Passing on the sesquipedalian torch" column in the WFB book "Right Reason" on p. 424.... And the WFB review of The Coup is in the book "Buckley: The Right Word" on p. 371....

I know several of these from my science background, and I recognise they're obscure. But I'm a little surprised that "scree" is considered a difficult word. It might be that it's much more familar to New Zealanders because we have so much scree.

I say great writers do use "words like that," but in ways that let the alert reader discover their meaning. English has (mostly) simple grammar, but is (in)famous for a very large vocabulary, which is why we English speakers, unlike the French, really can use "le mot juste" most of the time, and why running English text is much shorter (word or letter count) than equivalent expressions in most other languages which waste a lot of text on grammatical baggage and circumlocutions for want of specific words to convey the precise shades of meaning the author wishes to express. Anyway, psychometric researchers have shown us that acquiring and mastering vocabulary is very g-loaded; the "analogies" section of the SAT was removed specifically because it tested intelligence too well (that is, caused too much racial (and gender) disparate impact).

I say great writers do use "words like that," but in ways that let the alert reader discover their meaning.

Study The Sonnets [to the extent that they even admit any sort of productive "study" in the first place].

De Vere [or the Stratford Man or who-the-hell-ever actually wrote them] didn't use any of those asinine horseshit words like what you see on the Updike list.

To the contrary, the author of The Sonnets can take a simple, common, ordinary, single-syllable word, and twist it into four or five [or more] distinctly different possible meanings, ALL of which are capable of sensibly [as opposed to non-sensically] completing the ambient sentence.

And when you have four or five of those kinds of pivot words in a single sentence, then suddenly you've got anywhere from four-to-the-fourth [256] to five-to-the-fifth [3125] possible interpretations of the sentence, which has a really bad tendency to render the whole thing into meaningless nihilistic gibberish.

On the other hand, Hank Whittemore has produced a coherent Prince Tudor Theory of The Sonnets, which, if correct, would be the culmination of the greatest piece of literary detective work in the history of English literature [and recently I've been playing with an idea for a linguistic explanation which would at least shed some light on what such an author might have been trying to achieve with those kinds of word games], but certainly no one in the standard "Stratfordian" school of interpretation has ever had any earthly idea what The Sonnets might be trying to say, nor do any of them have the strength of character to confess to their cluelessness.

Anyway, as I soon as I see an author using a bunch of asinine horseshit words like what you see in the Updike list, then immediately I realize that I have much, much better things to do with my time than to waste any of it on that author's corpus.

Most great writers don't feel the need to show off their vocabulary. They prefer either an economical style that doesn't draw too much attention to itself (and away from the story) or a florid style flush with vivid metaphors, similes, and other stylistic tics, but with a reasonable range of diction that the intelligent reader can follow without a dictionary.

But some of our best writers have used obscure words at a high rate. Vladimir Nabokov is one. In Lolita, he has Humbert write to his Dolores Haze, "“I loved you. I was a pentapod monster, but I loved you."

James Joyce is another great writer who expanded the English language whenever he wrote, forcing even the most highly literate people to stay on their toes when reading his books.

William F. Buckley would be an example of a writer with a wide range of diction who still couldn't write worth a damn. His large vocabulary was used to show off.

I think John Updike falls somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't call him a great writer -- certainly not in the same realm as Nabokov or Joyce -- but he was well above Buckley as a prose stylist. Anthony Burgess, a contemporary of Updike's, is another middling writer who had an enormous vocabulary and displayed it quite often in his books.

About seventeen of the words are specific to the exotic setting of the book - the clothing, adornment, animals, customs, geography - and don't qualify as showing off or pedantry.

You might use "hooded cloak" for "burnoose" and "sleeveless tunic" for "coussabe" but why not have some fun? And if his hyraxes and jerboas got in there naturally, eating the garden or jumping in front of the jeep like grasshoppers, then they have a place in plot or description.

People who go on to become lawyers often do so because they have a literary rather than mathematical bent, and thus have a love of words for their own sake. Often judges cannot resist a bit of verbal mellifluoslilly whilst giving out judgments in cases that are not too serious to be considered to be trivialized by a bit of verbal gymnastics. A case in point were the 'Deep Throat' (no, not Richard Nixon, but the porno that got the whole mega buck jizz biz bandwagon roll ing back in the early 70s), obscenity trials. One anti-porno senior judge (ironically a catholic of Italian descent, as it happens), famously referred to Deep Throat as a 'disgusting platter of carrion and obscenity'. When I read those remarks, it really tickled me, I sniggered Beavis and Butthead style for a full 5 minutes. 'Carrion', of course refers to dead flesh, as in 'carrion crows' which famously devoured of London's victims of judicial riual butchery ('hanged, drawn and quartered as the quaint British jargon put it). The use of the term 'carrion' to describe the very much alive Ms Lovelace somehow was hilarious.

With the thousands of technical terms, loanwords, slang, and new coinages constantly being introduced from old affixes and roots, the line separating a real English word from something that isn't is largely a matter of opinion. If I can't imagine a certain word's being used by my favorite writers I tend to dimiss it as a non-word.

If Updike were born 5-10 years later he'd have probably been funneled toward an M.D., a 1960s respectable/whitebread career often coinciding with vocab aptitude. Lawyers don't need the same skill since the job chiefly requires the mastery of piecemeal cant and faddish technical lingo, much like modern journalism in that way.

A lot of these words are more common now than they would have been at the time the book was written. As someone pointed out, after 9/11, we all brushed up on our knowledge of the Islamic, whether we wanted to or not. Henna was once obscure but now they have henna shampoo on the shelf at the local drugstore. Touch screen Phone keyboards have "haptic" feedback.

Some of Buckley's omissions are surprising. Buckley's family (despite his Locust Valley Lockjaw) had roots in S. Carolina. One would expect him to know what a goober was. A pestle is a fairly common object. My guess is that he was either reaching for examples or that he was not as smart as he pretended to be.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.